Sunday, 3 June 2012

RTI Act-Shailesh Gandhi and Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy

SCHOPENHAUER'S LAW OF ENTROPY: If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage you get sewage. If you put a spoonful of sewage in abarel full of wine you get sewage!

Shailesh Gandhi is probably the only RTI activist who has had the privilege of being appointed an information commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He is an alumni of IIT Mumbai and hence hopes ran high amoung other activists who had been witnessing the blatant subversion of the law by the very information commissioners appointed in the most non-transparent and very much questionable manner. Strictly speaking the conditions laid down by the apex court for the appointment of the CVC should hold good for any similar appointments. Appointment of information commissioners certainly begs better defined procedures and wider options. As on date, of the 9 information commissioners at the Central Information Commission, 3 are from the IAS, one is the wife of an IAS officer, 2 are from the IPS, one is related to a former IFS officer, and then we have Shailesh Gandhi and a Chartered Accountant!

Shailesh Gandhi has been responsible for raising the bar with respect to disposal rates. Given the fact that the job of an information commissioner is simpler than that of a munsif, the rate of disposal expected of appeals is not less than 25 to 30 per day (the rate of disposal of complaints can definitely be even more!). While Shailesh Gandhi himself is on record claiming that he has disposed of 500 cases in a month, it appears that the CIC has accepted a nominal 300 cases per IC per month. And yes, Shailesh Gandhi has to his credit some good orders too. The notable one is his Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906 in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG where the interpretation of Sec 6(3) of the RTI has been analyzed critically and very aptly decided. (The decision is available at http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2011_000278_SG_12906_M_58648.pdf) (It is a different matter that the illegal Office Memorandum issued by the Dept of Personnel and Training quoted in that order continues to be quoted with impunity by the PIOs leading to avoidable appeals, delay and denial of information!)

But the purpose of this blog is to prove how curtly, idiotically and treacherously this alumni of one of the most prestigious institutions in the country has managed the numbers he claims as his disposal rate.

I had submitted 4 second appeals, two each under two covering letters, on 28/5/2010 and 7/7/2010. The first two of 28/5/2010 pertained to railways and Dept of Posts (precisely SSPO, Palakkad) and the next two of 7/7/2010 both pertained to SBI, Palakkad. As it happened, one appeal each from both lots were disposed of in the usual manner (I am just stating the fact that they were disposed of. The usual,as a qualifier means not only routinely as per time frames but also waywardly and most unsatisfactorily!) But when one of the two second appeals pertaining to SBI came up for hearing itself I had made queries about the other one also but had got no response.

The failure to process the 2nd second appeal in each lot proves the following:

1. the absurd procedure for documentation followed by the CIC- supposedly the ultimate watchdog for transparency!2. the staff at the CIC are incompetent to the core, because they cannot identify an appeal from a covering letter under which two appeals are received!2. even the ICs are equally incompetent for the same reason plus they do not even seem to be perusing the documents that the citizens submit with so much effort and draining so much of their resources, because if they had been doing it even casually they would have seen the other appeal and should have taken appropriate action.

Anyhow, suffice to say, I had to submit an application under the RTI Act to get to know the status of the other two appeals. And the gist of the exercise is that the PIO provided the info sought at paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.6 only and part of the info sought at paras 2.4 and 2.5 of only one appeal (Dy No 37981 on 28.5.20 10, Order No CIC/AD/A/20 10/001046 available at rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/ CIC_AD_A_20 1 0_001046 M_43703.pdf delivered on 29/9/10 and order dispatched on 15/10/2010) Even in this negligible info provided there is error because an appeal dated 28/5/1010, sent from Palakkad on that date, could not have been docketed on the same date at New Delhi! And even in this case, other information like other participants in the video conference, serial number in the the dispatch register for the order sent on 15/10/2010 etc have not been provided.

Now coming to the worst part- that is the hearing by Shailesh Gandhi and his order. It is to be noted that even the FAA had noted that the complete info had not been provided and ordered the CPIO to provide the info within 20 days. The 2nd appeal had explicitly stated that this had not been complied with. In spite of this, during the hearing conducted through video conference, Mr Gandhi curtly finished the hearing in less than one minute stating that all the info available had been provided and hence the appeal is disposed of! Does he expect us to believe that the info sought like docket numbers, receipt/dispatch register entries etc are available only some documents received/sent by the CIC?

And that is what raises the question: can an alumni of IIT Mumbai be an idiot or a traitor?

The contents of all the documents of this case are reproduced at the end of this blog for those interested in detailed study.

2. In the context of the above appeals you are requested to provide the following information:

2.1. The date of receipt and serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose2.2. With resepct to the acknowledgement, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc2.3. With respect to the notice for hearing, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc2.4. The dates and mode- in person, audio conference, video conference etc-of hearing and the names, designations and location of the participants2.5. With respect to the orders, the order number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc2.6. Also, with respect to the orders, the url of the order if available on the commission’s website.2.7. In the case of appeals where hearings have not been conducted so far, provide the copies of file notings and the statements of the PIO/FAA, if any, received.

3. Your attention is also invited to the following e mails sent by me:

6. Please use the file reference and date in all communication on this matter.

CONTENTS OF CPIO'S REPLY:

This has reference to your RTI application dared 23.7.2011 diarized in the Commission on 27.7.2011. The reply of the Designated Officer obtained under sec 5(4) of the RTI Act , is as under:

1. Received vide dy. No. 37981 on 28.5.2010 and

1.1. registered as case CIC/AD/A/20 10/001046.

1.2. The appeal dated 28.5.2009 was attached to the appeal bearing Dy. No. 37981, so only after this RTI, one could notice that there is an appeal bearing dated 28th May, 2001 instead of 28th May, 2010. The same is being forwarded to the registry of IC (LS) for necessary action. This letter does not bear any dy. No.

1.3 & 1.4. As per Receipt Management System no such letters have been received in the C.R. Section.

8.1. The information sought should be provided completely.8.2. Penalty as mandated by the RTI Act should be imposed. 8.3. Compensation of Rs 5000.00 (Rs Five thousand only) as provided by Sec 19(8)(b) may be paid by the public authority for detriment suffered in pursuing this appeal.Continued overleaf…

9. Grounds for the relief:

9.1. Firstly, there is NO clarity in the reply, since the reply is not given parawise/2nd appeal-wise. For example, the reply to info sought at para 2.1 should have been provided as:

Though there is no info sought at para 1 of my application, the reply at para 1.2 by the CPIO is absurd as both the 2nd appeals were sent under a covering letter. Copy of this letter is attached as Annx C.

9.2. Similarly, the replies at para 1.3 and 1.4 are also blatant lies since both the 2nd appeals were sent under a covering letter. Copy of this letter is attached as Annx D. The 2nd appeal referred to at para 1.3 of the current application has been disposed off on 8th Dec 2010, vide F No CIC/AT/A/2010/000683 and the emails quoted are also proof that the issue had been brought to the notice of the concerned IC/his/her staff.

Appellant has filed first appeal dated 30th August 2011, diarized in the Commission on 6th September 2011, against response of CPIO dated 26th August 2011, on RTI application dated 23rdJuly 2011, diarized in the Commission on 27th July 2011.

2. Appeal was fixed for hearing on 29th September 2011 at 12:45 p.m. The appellant was heard on telephone while Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Shri G Subramanian and Shri TK Mohapatra, Deputy Registrar and CPIO were present in my chamber.

3. In the RTI application, the appellant had sought information in paras 2.1 to 2.7 and 3.1 and 3.2. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is that there is no clarity in the reply, since the reply is not given para-wise/second appeal wise. He has also pointed out that no information was sought in para one of his application and reply in para 1.2 is absolute as the second appeal was then under a covering letter.

4. I find that in para 1, the appellant had referred to 4 second appeals filed by him in the Commission, for which information was sought in paras 2.1 to 2.7. Since, the reply has not gone para-wise and hence not clear, Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, nodal CPIO is directed to send fresh information with respect to 4 second appeal filed by the appellant against Department of Railways, Posts and State Bank of India within 20 working days of the receipt of this order. The Deputy Registrars dealing with these departments are also directed to make available information to the nodal CPIO.

5. So far as information sought in para 4 of the petition is concerned, withreference to e-mail referred in para 3, it is seen that the information sought hasalready been provided, hence, needs no interference.

6. With these remarks, the appeal is disposed of.

8. The appellant may prefer an appeal u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before theCentral Information Commission, R. No. 412, IV Floor, Block-IV, Old JNU Campus,New Delhi – 110 067 against this order within 90 days, if he so desires.

1. The 2nd appeal is forwarded herewith.2. Please acknowledge receipt and quote the file number given here is all correspondence.3. Your attention is invited to sec 6, 7, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act and Sec 217, 218 and 219 of the IPC.4. The written responses, if any received from the PIO/FAA , should accompany the notice for hearing.5. The hearing should be conducted through video conference. There is a facility for the same provided by NIC adjoining the office of the District Collector, Palakkad, Kerala

8.1. The information sought should be provided completely.8.2. Penalty as mandated by the RTI Act should be imposed. 8.3. Compensation of Rs 5000.00 (Rs Five thousand only) as provided by Sec 19(8)(b) may be paid by the public authority for detriment suffered in pursuing this appeal.

9. Grounds for the relief:

9.1. Firstly, the grounds for relief mentioned in para 9 of the 1st appeal remains valid even now.

9.2. Next, the FAA has also proved beyond doubt that she is as incompetent as the PIO when it comes to performing the assigned tasks are concerned. For example, in para 3 she has mentioned that information has been sought in paras 2 and 3 of the application. Para 3 of the application is only references of communication about which information has been sought in para 4 of the same application! Then again, in the same para she has stated ‘….and reply in para 1.2 is absolute as the second appeal was then under a covering letter.’ I have gone over my 1st appeal with a fine comb and never came across such a statement! Also, in para 5 she has stated that the information sought in par 4 of the application has been provided. But the reply of the PIO against para 4 of the application is that ‘there is no specific notings in the case file in respect of the e mails sent by you as mentioned in the RTI application.’ This has to be presumed to be a blatant lie because either no file has been opened (consequently no action taken on the e mails) or if any file has been opened there has to be at least one noting on it!

9.2. Lastly, though the FAA has directed the nodal CPIO to provide the information within 20 working days of the receipt of the order, no such information has been received till date though it is more than 36 days since the order has been issued!

9.3. The compensation sought is nominal to cover the cost of effort and expenditure involved in pursuing the 1st appeal an 2nd appeal.

Signature of the Appellant

VERIFICATION

Verified that the details given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.